CUSTOMS CONSPIRACY CHARGES.

NZ Truth, Issue 443, 13 December 1913, Page 5

CUSTOMS CONSPIRACY CHARGES.

[From "Truth V C

The realisation that matters connected with the Christchurch Customs Department have been aoaiewhat cnaotic for Borne time past, has caused quite a flutter m the City of the Plains, and the Customs Department has risen to the occasion and effected the arrest of a quintette of trusted servants whose complicity In customs frauds is openly alleged. If. aB staled, the Department has been rrobberd r despite the eagle eyes of a few of its brass bound paragons of autocracy, it is quite on the cards that last week's quintettic arrest is only the fringe of proceedings which will culminate m the envelopment of a few of these over-autocraclous individuals who m their eagerness to bump against the humble sailor man who dares to bring ashoro a couple of one, pound tins ot marmalade he Kas saved from" his rations and have him fined five golden quldJets, have been, but manufacturing for themselves a shoddy halo to cover the more multitudinous shortcomings of their own. All the persons arrested are well known m Christchurch as possessors of unimpeachable records. The pity of it- is that the administration ot H.M. Customs should be so infernally lax as to leave gaping loopholes which invite fraud. And the dividends offered through these loopholes are substantial enough to tempt the most sober minded. By this, of course, it is not inferred that any of the accused persons were tempted. la any case, the loopholes nre' there arid If lett unpatched cannot result otherwise than m TEMPTATION AND REVENUE LEAKAGES. The flve persons arrested, and the charges preferred against them are as follow:— Samuel John McCormack (Customs clerk, N. 2. Express Cd.) and Jamea Anderson Campbell (landing wuiter at Lyttelton), charged with lmvlng stolen the sum of £47 16?, the property ot Reynolds and Kinvig. Hugh Law ton Owen (Customs agent) and Jas. Anderson Campbell, charged thai on September 19, 1913. they did. steal Cl 6 16s, the property oi George ' Davles and Co, Ltd.; with having on September 30 stolt-n £20 10s, the property of the same firm; and with having stolen on various other dates sums of £19, £25 Ss, £12 4s, £18, and £16 Ss, also th> property of Geo. Davles and Co., Ltd., md £12, Uio property of the Crjvjn Clothing Co. Christopher Robert Smith and J. A. Campbell, are charged with the theft of £12. VJ-&, the property of Hicks and Co. George Clifford Francis and J. A. Campbell are charged with the theft or £22 ss, the property ot J. FT. Parker and Co., and £22 ss, the property of M. Hollander. The cases twere hoard at the Magistrate's Court lost Tuesday, bofore Justices of the Peace. Mr. Wright conducted tho prosecution for the Cubtoms Department, and Messrs M. Donnelly und Hoban looked after tho dc« fence. Brlelly reviewing tho facts of the ease ugalnat McCormack and Campbell, Mr. Wright said that McCormack In his capacity as a clerk for the >J.Z Express Co., doing mainly Customs work, passed certain entries for »erg« goods, which wero woollens, aa "cotton piece goods.* Campbell, a clerk In the Customs Department and m ruling waiter, received the entry form from McCormack, and certified that ALL ENTRIES WERE IN ORDER. The amount of duty payable was set down U8 £(S 13h ltd. rtnd Reynolds •and Klnvlg were debited with that amount by the N".<s. Kxpre<«« Co., MeConnack's employer*, who h>)y received the amount. It would b« proved that no part of th'.R turn went into tho CuHtomH Department und ih-it tho goodn were pawned as undutlabta gOOiIH. H«(bt. J«:«, Jjiy, ChrMe.htirch m,*nflKor of ihr X.Z. ?Sxpre«« Co.. reci>ar« nin«tl the Invoice e^verlng tho goods In respect of which defalcation* were nlIcffcd to Itavf occurred. The«o good? represented C 217 n« lid. the amount which should be dutiable. The Cu»- ■! torn* clerk* duty was to keep In the J office unc copy of ail cntrico passed at i

ALLEGED FRAUD AND FALSIFICATION.

CONSTERNATION AMONG CHRISTCHURCH CLERKS.

hristohuroh Rep.]

the Customs House. Witness produced a copy of the Invoice covering the j goods, and said that McCormack had \ been the clerk engaged In the transac- ! tlon. The cheque (produced) for £122 , 10s for cust6ms entry had been signed by Avltness arid countersigned by McCormack. As far as the witness could i remember, he signed the cheque at the ! request of the accused McCormack. Judging by the fact that It was countersigned by McCormack there was no doubt m witness's mind that' he had been asked by McCormack to sign the cheque. :On September ,23 Tvitnes^;^ company received a cheque for £54 19a -Id for charges, Including the sum at present Involved, due from Reynolds and Kinvig. The Customs form produced, which was In McCormack'3 handwriting, described the woollens which we're really received by Reynolds and Kinvis: as ... "COTTON PIECE (JO^DS." Judging by the documents, McCormack had charge of all the Customs transactions m the present case.

John Reynolds, a member of the firm : ■of Reynolds and Kinvig, said that; he Instructed tho N.Z, Express Co. to pass Customs entries In respect to tho goods subject of the prosent case. Regarding these goods witness subsequently received all tho papers produced, from the Express Co. The marks of tho goods mentioned In the mvolce, produced, were Identical with those on the goods received and for which witness paid charge* amounting to £64 19h 6d to tho Express Co. Cross-examined by Mr, P^nneUy, witness said that his oookkoeper would have, examined the triplicate entry, ' tho Jnvolco and the account co-/ verlng the goods In question. It would bo Incorrect to 'describe tho goods received by witness as "cotton iMreo goods." Hugh S. Cordeny, Customs clerk In thu ChrlfltchuVch oin.ee, statotl that the accused Campbell was nlso a clerk In the uume oitlce. The Initials certifying that the entry of Reynolds and [Klnvlg'H goods compared accurately with the Invoice were those of the accused Campbell. Cotton piece, goods an set out In the entry are admitted free of duty, whereat* '.h« woollens set «?ut m the invoice are dutiable to the j extent of 20 per cent. The total duly ' Ouc on tho woollens described m thel entry as cotton -piece goodx would amount to £-17 iu s . ,\a .i matter of Tact, no duty on the toed 1 * was paid Into the Custom* rtepAr.moni. Tho additional signniure on tho entry declnrlng that ths goods i^celved were umlutinbld eottem* wns tluit of McCormack. Questioned by Mr. Donnelly. wlinejM j«ald that tho enirlcn of koo<1» landed were checked from the Mhip'M Dapt-rn and ft. copy of each entry wna »unt weekly to the Cuatoma audit m Wd-

lington for Immediate checking. Duty on imports was paid by Importers or their agents at the Customs House counter. The officer at the counter ACCEPTED THE ACCURACY of the agent's statement as shown by ' the statement presented, only when the statement and Customs entry agreed. The Customs Collector's concern was whether the entries and agent's statements tallied. If the agent tendered an entry representing the goods received as not dutiable at ail; that entry was not checked turther than with the face copy Of the entry m the possession of the Custom;; office. The landing waiter was supposed to check the agent's invoice with the ship's entry of the goods and allow the agent to take possession of the goods if he was satisfied. It was possible that If the landing waiter v/ere dishonest, the dutiable goods would pass from the control of the Customs, although they would also have to stand the checking ot tho landing surveyor and his assistants before they got through. \. In /reply to a.nuestlon "by the Bench, .witness., said that he could not say who it was that the invoice m the present . jjas^borje. an,* imprint ot -tb<x landing surveyor's stamp. Ho could, only. Infer that the stamp HAD; BEEN- MANIPULATED. The Btamp was under the control of the landing surveyor. To Air. Hoban: If the audit office copies of the entries compared accurately with the local entries tho latter would bo correct! Tho landing waiter had 4 nothing to do with the copy sent to the audit office. , This concluded the Department's

case. Mr. Donnelly Kubinltted that thuro was not a tittle of evidence that McCormack had stolen thy money. There wa« not even any* evidence to show that he had cached the cheque. He wa.s charged with stealing, but there wax absolutely no evidence of theft. Mr. Hoban submitted v similar ud- | dress on behalf of Campbell. Tho Justices considered a prtma | facie caao had been made out and committed both the accused for trial. Tho circumstances of the eimem ngninst the remainder of thi* aeeuned wero pniciJcnJly on the same lines as !In that preferred against MeCormuck and Campbell. Jn nil the cases heard l«*t Tuesduy tho defendants pleaded not guilty and i reserving their -defence were committed for trial. Ball wns fixed. «u.ch ease «t £200 a nU In two suretlwa each of ! £150. I Cases against Cnmi)b»ll. Owen. Smith and McCormack were atljourni<d to December 17. It l« stated thnt con«p!ruey «*h;ir^ej» UHUinst the. ncctwvd itre tending.